Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 October

Nanjing Massacre (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (No discussion on closer's talk page) Born2cycle did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because he/she disregarded the ongoing contentious debate in closing this requested move. The close was premature while there was no clear consensus with 5 editors opposing the move ("Non-admin closes normally require that the consensus is clear"). The latest comment on the RM was made at 05:47, 30 October 2018, and the closer hasty closed the RM at 19:50, 30 October 2018 without giving more time for further inputs from editors. The RM should be reopened and relisted. STSC (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC) (involved editor)

Additional statement: The closer overlooked significant policy information discussed in the RM: WP:TITLECHANGES and the RM should be reopened and relisted. STSC (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC) (I decided to remove this secondary complaint because it may lead to misunderstanding on the main reasons for the MR. STSC (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC))

• Endorse close There's no reason for Wikipedia to use an anachronistic spelling for a place name just because English speakers in the 1930s might have used it. As has been pointed out on page the common spelling of Nanjing at the time was actually 南京 - how we choose to represent that in a modern encyclopedia should reflect what will make it easiest for readers to understand now. No compelling reason was put forward for retaining the old spelling. Simonm223 (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• Just noting that a relevant discussion took place on WP:RM/TR and can been viewed at Special:Permalink/866630516. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• REMINDER: Move reviews are not the place for rearguing the case to move or not move the article. They are for procedurally challenging a close. RGloucester — ☎ 19:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Closer's comment: First of all, it's customary to make a request at the closer's talk page to reopen before going straight to MR. Had that been, I probably would have reopened, because I never see harm in more discussion, but now it's out of my hands. That said, when I went to close it the request was already in the RM backlog meaning the discussion had been ongoing for a week. Consensus was in favor of the move, including two initial opposers who had been persuaded to support, and there had been no opposing !votes in two days. I really don't see much realistic possibility of a change on this. --В²C ☎ 19:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

"No opposing !vote for two days" cannot be justified for closing any RM, let alone this RM which was highly contested by 5 opponents. STSC (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

STSC: It had 5 oppose !votes, which is not the same as "highly contested" by 5—one of those five !votes is suspected of socking (by a fellow opposer!), and another left no rationale. The timing of the close was a surprise, but let's not distort the record. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

And where is the evidence of that? I was notified by STSC, but as an involved party, that seems justified, if s/he contacted everyone involved, per WP:CANVAS for non-biased notifications -- 65.94.42.18 (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Am I the accuser? The accuser (a fellow opposer) noted that you seem to have popped into existence the day you !voted, and seem to know your way around the back rooms of Wikipedia far too well for a newbie—such as knowing of the links to WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:COMMONNAME your first day of editing. Your oppose comment also raises numerous questions, such as why you would raise WP:NOTCENSORED. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: The first edits from that IP's /16 range date from February 2002. There is no way of knowing how long they have been editing. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Frayæ: The first made from that address was 26 October 2018. If the IP wants to disclose what other addresses they've used, they're free to. Regardless, the !vote comment raised eyebrows and provides the thinnest evidence in support of "highly contested". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The RM was highly contested collectively by 5 opponents. That's the fact. STSC (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

STSC: It was opposed by 5, not "highly contested" by 5—such an assertion only looks suspiciously hysterical. As they say: you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Even in term of the number of opponents, we can safely say it's highly contested by 5 people (not just one or two). STSC (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

STSC: Will you freaking drop this? It was not "highly contested by 5 people" by any definition of "highly contested". WP:AGF has its limits and you seem driven to triple-jump past them. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

It was not specifically aimed at you as it was a comment about the issue raised, but you raised the issue, so I left a comment on it, since there was no reply to my reply in the talk discussion in the first place. So, my comment here would be open to any user to reply to, including the accuser from the talk page, who did not deign to reply on that page.

What, I'm supposed to keep track of everytime the ISP rolls over the IP address now? And where's the WP:POLICY for that need to always keep track of every single IP rotation forever? People throwing around "sock" and "SPA" should know that ISPs roll-over dynamic IP addresses on a random basis to random values. The accuser on the talk page raised SPA, which isn't sock, you raised "sock", which isn't the same thing. A user with a singular purpose in making a particular point of view is not the same as a person replicating other people's opinions. As my opinion raised issues that no other editor raised, clearly it isn't a socking position, since the backing opinion I issued is different. Why would I raise NOTCENSORED? The title I preferred was "Rape of Nanking", and it is stated (in the ongoing discussion before I posted an opinion) that other editors objected to that on a non-COMMONNAME basis, so this appears to be censorship, since from the basis I was looking at, the COMMONNAME is "Rape of Nanking". Clearly this seems to be political correctness based censorship when it denies the proper title.

-- 65.94.42.18 (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

65.94.42.18 (talk · contribs) "What, I'm supposed to keep track of everytime the ISP rolls over the IP address now"? No, instead, as some argue, including me, IPs have no place editing project pages. This is a project page. Project page editing requires a high level of accountability. You should WP:Register. Once registered, you are not allowed to edit project space logged out. Have you previously had an account? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, IP, I mistook "SPA" for "Sock Puppet Account". You do, at the very least, have a responsibility to back up your assertions in such a discussion, especially when they're as contentious as the one you made. Drive-by comments only add noise and increase the tension in a dispute. Further, you've obviously been around long enough to know what suspicions an IP acount would raise, and the good reasons why. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Overturn / Reopen this was a controversial major change on a longstanding major article, and should have been let to run longer, then left for an experienced and neutral admin to close. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
• Overturn. That was not a consensus. The close was a bad bold call, a WP:SUPERVOTE. WP:NAC-ers should not be closing strongly contested discussions. Let an experienced admin reclose, or relist. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I haven't seriously followed the ongoing discussion, but I re-affirm my !vote that the close was overreach, definitely for an NAC, and that "no consensus" was a more reasonable close, with "let it continue" being what should have happened. I note that the closer, В²C, agree to a relist/re-open, and really what should have happened was a request put to him directly BEFORE this came to MR. It is bad that it came prematurely to MR. It is bad this became bogged down in MR procedure after the closer agreed to relist. How can we fix this process problem? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse or relist - as debate was still active, and the discussion was split numerically, there might have been a case for giving it another week. There were also some voices calling for "Rape of Nanking" which could have merited further discussion. That said though, at the time of the close the WP:CONSENSUS (viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy) very clearly favoured those supporting the move. WP:COMMONNAME arguments were made for the current title, backed up with an ngram which showed it vastly ahead of the previous title in book usage by 2008, with only the "Rape of Nanking" title a close match. Oppose arguments mainly said it was known as Nanking at the time which may be true, but is irrelevant as it's the common name in today's sources that guide us.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Off-topic. I don't know why i was canvassing by STSC despite i also commented in that move. Some user intentionally omitted "Rape of Nanking" in the link of his ngram, to make the argument only on "Nanking" or "Nanjing" instead of common name in ngram, as well as the super vote, the "discussion" was instead not go well. Ok back to the business: Endorse admin (re)close. the RM should not be closed by non-admin in this situation. Matthew hk (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Note: I was WP:CANVASSed by STSC to this discussion. Consensus based on policy-based arguments favor moving the article. We are debating whether the closure was appropriate, not who closed the discussion. A move to "Rape of Nanking" would require a new RM. If anything taking this to MR without notifying the closer is very bad practice. feminist (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Reopen Despite reaching the outcome I voted for, I think it should be reopened for further discussion. I was canvassed by STSC just for full disclosure, though I was involved in the original discussion and definitely am interested in being a part of this discussion. I agree that a neutral party should determine when to close. Air♠Combat_Talk! 03:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Upon further thought, I am changing my vote to Close the move review. I don't think there was enough reason to request a move review. (By the way I had a nickname change) MrAureliusR_Talk! 04:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment As a point of order, STSC's talk page posts were not true canvassing because they were sent to every participant in the RM, whether they supported or opposed the move. It is probably unusual to do that when there's a move review, but I don't think it's prohibited as long as the posts aren't selectively applied to favour one outcome or another.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Overturn. Clear no consensus, especially since many support comments seemed to be highlighting that the city is known as Nanjing now, which is irrelevant, and ignoring what it was known as then. We do not use anachronism or revisionism on Wikipedia. Comments like "Frankly, the older romanizations that led to failures of transcription like "Peking" and "Nanking" are relics of the past that are best buried" are clearly POV. The closing statement stated that there was no consensus to keep the article at its former title; however, conversely, there was certainly no consensus to move it. Under our procedures, it should therefore be left at its former title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It's already been pointed out that this is not the forum to relitigate the debate. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Please try reading what I actually wrote. I was commenting on the closer's comments that there was a consensus to move due to "strong" arguments from supporters. What I said was clearly relevant to this statement as I was pointing out that these arguments were not "strong" in the slightest and also appear to be motivated in part by POV and revisionism that has no place on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Necrothesp: It's pretty obvious I have read what you've written—an attempt to relitigate the dispute in the wrong forum. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
        • You may have read it. You clearly didn't understand it since you have now completely misinterpreted it twice. Of course it is relevant to this forum if the closer misinterpreted (in good faith, I am not denying, but still misinterpreted in my opinion) weak arguments as strong arguments and claimed there was a consensus when there was none. That's the whole point of having this discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
          • Necrothesp: "if the closer misinterpreted ... weak arguments as strong arguments and claimed there was a consensus"—this is the very definition of relitigating the case: "The other side made weak arguments, and my side made stronger ones"—this sounds absolutely infantile. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
            • Good grief, you really are failing to understand basic English. I will therefore attempt to lay it out as simply as I can. This review is about the closure of the renaming debate. The support and oppose opinions were approximately equally divided. The closer, however, decided to close it as a support, claiming the support arguments were stronger. This is the crux of this review, since this is clearly controversial (and also a premature close by a non-admin). My point is that the support arguments were not stronger and therefore the close was incorrect. Okay? How is this in any way "relitigating the case"? It is merely saying that it should have been closed as no consensus, which it clearly was, and laying out my reasons why. Why exactly do you think we're having this discussion? I get it that the close went your way and you're miffed that we're having a review at all. I would be too in your position. But don't falsely accuse me of doing something I'm not because of it. WP:AGF. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Necrothesp: You're "relitigating the case" because you're bringing up arguments for why the article should not be moved:

• "the city is known as Nanjing now, which is irrelevant, and ignoring what it was known as then"
• "We do not use anachronism or revisionism on Wikipedia." (BTW—you've been called out on this "revisionism" canard and refuse to respond to it)
• "Comments like ... blablahblah ... are clearly POV."

These are your words. These words are relitigating the case, not challenging the procedural manner in which the move request was closed. You're performing "revisionism" on your own comments, and your dodging and attempts at condescension aren't going to hide that. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Closer reply: First, Curly Turkey, I don't think Necrothesp is "relitigating" the RM; they are talking about how the closer (Yours Truly) evaluated consensus. That's fair game in an MR. So, to their point, I most definitely did not dismiss or discount support arguments simply because they were based on applying what Nanjing is known as now to the title decision for "Nan?ing Massacre". I'm not aware of any clear consensus-based guidance either way on this point, so such support !votes were given full weight. I also did not recognize any of the opinions "to be motivated in part by POV and revisionism", and so did not adjust the weights of any opinions per that either. If any of that was present and it was an error on my part to miss it, then that might be grounds to contest and possibly overturn my finding of consensus in support. As to the claim that the support/oppose opinions were about evenly divided, I didn't think so. I thought the support opinions were more persuasive, and I wasn't the only one; two opposers were swayed by the support arguments to switch to support. --В²C ☎ 01:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

C'mon now, B2C, in the RM discussion I repeatedly pointed out the policy of considering changes per WP:TITLECHANGES that states "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." You chose to completely ignore this argument and quickly closed the RM soon after 7 days while the discussion was still on-going. I would try to AGF but it seems to me, dare I say it, a supervote? STSC (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Whether there is a good reason to change the article title or not is determined by consensus...there isn't a default opposition to change merely because it is change. I provided reasons why I thought there should be a change...whether those reasons are good or not depends on whether people agree with me or not, and whether policy/guidelines support my position. In any case, according to WP:TITLECHANGES, if there is a dispute and no consensus, the default is the first non-stub version. The article was at Nanjing massacre (lowercase) at the time it ceased to be a stub (or here, depending on your definition of 'stub'). It was later unilaterally moved to Nanking Massacre without discussion in 2005. So, by your argument, should we not return to Nanjing massacre? RGloucester — ☎ 20:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

You should know better this is not the right place to discuss it, hopefully if and when the RM is relisted? STSC (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the merits of the move. I'm talking about your claim that TITLECHANGES was not factored into B2C's closing, which I find to be inappropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 20:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Let the closer respond, not you. Thank you. STSC (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Only one opposer even mentioned TITLECHANGES, that argument was addressed, and most participating favored a change which implied they believed there was good reason to change. To override that consensus would be a supervote. I didn’t and still don’t have a dog in this fight. I honestly don’t see strong policy guidance favoring one over the other. But my job as closer wasn’t to decide what I thought the title should be, it was to decide what the participants thought it should be, though incorporating how well their reasoning was supported by policy/guidelines. I did my best. If the closer of this MR finds consensus here agrees with you that I erred by closing it too early, then it will be relisted, and I’m fine with that. By the way, my approach is to check requests in the backlog. I generally only relist when only a few had participated or I don’t see a clear consensus or lack of consensus. In this case I saw a clear consensus, so I closed. —В²C ☎ 06:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The argument of stable title had not been addressed, and no good reason had been demonstrated for the move. There's no clear consensus when there were 5 editors opposing the move. The hastiness of the close just after 7 days did point to a suspected supervote by you. STSC (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Most titles that are the subject of RMs are stable and yet this argument is rarely directly addressed. That’s because it’s implied in the good reasons people support for changing the title, usually by citing policy or guidelines which indicate the move in question is appropriate. This discussion was no different. As to “consensus”, perhaps you’re not familiar with how WP:CONSENSUS is determined on WP and why five in opposition does not necessarily indicate a lack of support consensus. 7 days is the normal time an RM has been open when it’s closed. —В²C ☎ 13:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm clearly not. But since you clearly can't (or don't want to) understand that despite my efforts to explain in the simplest possible terms, I shall rest my case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Necrothesp: You most clearly are, and your awkaward, petty attempts at condescension are as embarrassing to witness here as your unsupported (unsupporatable) claims of "revisionism" both here and in the move request (and refusals to address them when called out). You clearly have no intention of holding a discussion in good faith. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the revisionism argument is quite valid but we don't discuss it here. STSC (talk) 03:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

STSC: If there was anything to the "revisionism" argument, Necrothesp has had ample opportunity to back it up with something—anything—and yet has steadfastly refused to when called out on it (more than once). Throwing a word around does not count as "evidence", and bringing it up (again, utterly devoid of anything sort of evidence) at a Move Review does not count as anything but attempting to relitigate the discussion in an inappropriate forum, while casting WP:ASPERSIONS on those he disagrees with (both there and here). This is despicable behaviour. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I was also canvassed by STSC but I'd already left my endorsement of closure, so I didn't think it particularly relevant until I saw how many others had similar messages. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse or relist – I definitely agree with the sentiment that this could've been left longer. While I don't see anything truly wrong with the close itself, I don't think NACs should close controversial RMs like this, as it prevents a large part of the editorial base from viewing the closing as decisive. As a note, I am the one who proposed the move. I find it unfortunate that instead of being an impartial review of the closing, this has turned into a rehashing of the debate itself because of canvassing by the filing party, who also did not discuss the matter with the closer ahead of time. Mr Born to Cycle has already said he would've reopened the discussion if that had been asked of him. This whole thing feels like a pointless affair, launched by someone with an axe to grind. RGloucester — ☎ 16:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I simply notisfied ALL the participants, it's not canvassing. Thank you. STSC (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

You only notified all participants after I chastised you for selective notifications. Your intent was quite clear, I'm afraid. RGloucester — ☎ 17:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, just check the timing, I was still in the process of posting messages to the involved editors one by one. STSC (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Before my message, you had only notified those who opposed the move. You did not even follow the contributors in a chronological order, but instead focused on notifying those who you thought would support you. Like I said, that's quite clear. That's not the real issue, though. These notifications were pointless anyway, because MR should be evaluated by uninvolved parties, addressing procedural issues, not rearguing the move with all the same participants. RGloucester — ☎ 17:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I selected whoever I wanted to notify first, that's none of your business. I've followed the instruction in MR to notify all participants. That is it. There's no need to get personal, saying something like "an axe to grind", etc. STSC (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The instructions at IMR say 'The discussion with closer and notices required above are sufficient notification; you are not required to individually notify participants in the prior move discussion'. Why didn't you follow the usual procedure per WP:IMR and ask the closer to reopen the discussion, which he would've done? I can't see that action as anything other than trying to throw a spanner in the works. RGloucester — ☎ 18:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

This is the MR's instruction I followed, "if you individually notify any of them, you must individually notify all of them by posting a message about the move review on each participant's respective user talk page."

Judging by the biased manner in which the closer hasty closed the RM, at the time I didn't think the closer would back down. It was my decision to have a full formal MR. STSC (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@STSC and Born2cycle: Would you accept withdrawing this MR, with the discussion reopened by Born2Cycle as per the procedure? RGloucester — ☎ 21:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Closing an MR before the 7 days is "per the procedure"? What procedure? Who closes? But if it is acceptable, yeah, sure. Of course. --В²C ☎ 22:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

MRs are not specified to last seven days; sometimes they last much longer, and sometimes they are withdrawn. In any case, because STSC skipped the first step, to ask you to reopen, I figured we could avoid a lot of nonsense by just going back to that point and reopening it, as would've happened normally. As for who closes, that'd be whoever comes along and feels competent to do so. In any case, WP:NOTBURO and all that. If we can solve this reasonably, let's do so. RGloucester — ☎ 23:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm in. Just wary of being accused of doing something wrong. Thanks. I presume we should wait to see if STSC agrees? Not only did they skip my Talk to go straight to MR, after my explanation they still characterized me as being biased and hasty, which I don't understand. So I'm not comfortable assuming they would be okay with this without hearing from them. But assuming they are, you have my blessing to revert my close and reopen/relist the discussion if I'm not around. Sound like a plan? --В²C ☎ 23:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

That's why I pinged him, to see if he consents to such a resolution. In any case, reverting the close and reopening the discussion seems most in spirit with WP:IMR, as that's what he asked for, even though he skipped the talk page step. RGloucester — ☎ 00:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Having observed STSC's continuing lack of good faith, and his inability to compromise, I've changed my position from 'endorse or relist' to endorse. I don't think we should indulge this sort of stonewalling. RGloucester — ☎ 18:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Born2cycle: If you're willing, please revert your close. RGloucester — ☎ 14:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: The effect of relisting the RM is "Move title to pre-RM title (Nanking Massacre) and reopen and relist RM". If that whole thing can be done now then I agree to withdraw this MR here. STSC (talk) 02:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Demanding the page be moved back to the WP:RIGHTVERSION should not be necessary to reopen the RM, and will have no effect on the final outcome. If there is no consensus for the move, no harm will be done by waiting until that has been determined. If consensus is to move, we'd then have two more moves. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
    • A whole set of categories, templates and supporting articles were all moved as well remember. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Of course we'll have to move back to Nanking Massacre in order to reopen and relist the original RM. See WP:MR Section 2.3.1. Option 6. STSC (talk) 17:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

        Nope. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. As just one example, see Talk:Teeswater sheep#Requested move 25 August 2014: Someone demanded at WP:RM/TR the reversion of 100+ manual moves, as undiscussed and allegedly controversial. The RM admins declined, on the basis that the moves would probably be upheld, and simply instructed the complainant to open a new mass-RM discussion. Complainant did so, and the RM admins' prediction was correct. RM peeps don't create unnecessary work for themselves just to make someone happy for 7 days. Nothing at all would preclude a result, in this case, of just opening a new RM at the present location.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse. Good close. Come back in six months to a year with new arguments and try to garner consensus to rename it again. Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  16:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it's a bad close by any standard. See my reply below. STSC (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@STSC: please make sure you do not WP:BLUDGEON this conversation. We know your opinion already, there is no need to reply to every single !vote you disagree with. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I accept your advice. I just wanted to clarify the misunderstanding about this MR. STSC (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse; a tough but justified close. The evidence for the move was pretty strong, and despite sizable opposition I'm unimpressed about overall strength of their arguments. To address them briefly: Matthew_hk asserted that "Nanking Massacre" is more common but only provided a single reference to that effect; Necrothesp insisted that "the city was not known as Nanjing at the time", which was refuted by RGloucester's appeal to WP:MPN that Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources does the same; Rreagan007 and 65.94.42.18 opposed by preferring "Rape of Nanking", which is perhaps a viable title but was not originally proposed and may deserve a separate discussion; and finally, STSC invoked WP:TITLECHANGES in a manner that means that we should never revisit long-standing titles, contradicting the very Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title provision. No such user (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I respect your opinion regarding the RM itself but the close was too soon and it should not have been closed by a non-admin editor while there's no clear consensus. STSC (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, STSC, that's a "no" on both counts. First, being closed by a non-admin is not an issue here at Move review. That reason cannot be used to make a decision here. Second, the RM was in the backlog, so if it couldn't have been had been closed "too soon", that could easily be reversed by talking to the closer. However, If you had discussed the outcome with the closer on their talk page before opening this MR, you may have prevailed upon them to relist. Best to you! Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  18:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:RMCI: "Non-admin closes normally require that the consensus is clear... All closures of requested moves are subject to being taken to review at MP:Move review." It's too soon to close a RM if the discussion is still ongoing, whether in backlog or not. I was going to respond to some of the arguments in the RM but couldn't, I think it's very unfair. The closer seemed to be very determined to close the RM soon after 7 days, I do not know what could or could not be resolved if I had attempted to talk to him/her. STSC (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to consider putting down the WP:STICK. Simonm223 (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Very true. I'm getting tired of it myself. STSC (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Just for clarity: please see WP:RMCI#Non-admin closure, All closures of requested moves are subject to being taken to review at WP:Move review (WP:MR), but the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure, and WP:MR#What this process is not, This review process should be focused on the move discussion and the subsequent results of the move discussion, not on the person who closed the discussion.

In regard to closing too soon, you and I agree that an ongoing discussion should not be closed even if it is in the backlog (previous statement adjusted); however, by not discussing it on the closer's talk page first, we'll never know how you might have influenced the result. Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  06:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

This review has not focused on the closer himself/herself but his/her action on the move discussion. STSC (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You mean, except where the closer has been accused of supervoting. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

That's actually related to the subsequent results of the move discussion. STSC (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

That's actually related to accusing the closer of having acted in bad faith. That's focusing on the closer, not the close. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I have mentioned it but the MR has not "focused" on him/her being a possible supervoter. STSC (talk) 08:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Trainwreck / grudging endorse. The best option would have been for STSC to have asked B2C to revert himself on the talk page, and B2C indicates he'd have been willing to do so, rather than go to Move Review at all, then let a neutral admin closer do the close and presumably have the same moved-to-Nanjing result. While I agree with the close, this Move Review could easily have been avoided had B2C let somebody else neutral do the close, or if STSC had just asked B2C first. That said, even if B2C reverted himself now, I don't really expect a different result. SnowFire (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse After watching this discussion balloon to 36 KB+, it has descended into bickering and rehashing of the same complaints. I am now convinced that extension of the RM discussion at this time would not be productive. This move review has turned into a needless blight on otherwise longstanding and respectable editors. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse—it was suprising to see a close (admin or non-) so quickly, with discussion still ongoing, but there is nothing procedurally suspect about the close. There was also clearly nothing new being brought to the table against the move, and the supports were gradually piling up in light of the amount of evidence provided and continuing to accumulate—so much so that two opposers even withdrew their opposes. It's difficult to imagine another uninvolved party closing against the move. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse, though re-RMing this one way or another would be kinda-sorta okay as distant second choice, as long as it didn't entail pre-emptively moving everything back first (WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY). The close was not faulty, but it need not have been that soon. I don't find that its reasoning with regard to the discussion and analysis thereof is flawed in any important way. As for the central argument, which seems to have been that the "Nanking" spelling is more familiar to more readers and thus is the WP:COMMONNAME, I find that extremely dubious. Modern, Western media have consistently referred to this place as Nanjing for a long time now, and the exact phrase "Rape of Nanking" is familiar in people's minds as a best-selling book title, not as anything like an "official name" of the the subject of our article. I.e., some editors are confused about what it's the common name of.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC); revised: 23:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Just to remind any MR participant, the MR is about the inappropriate and premature close of the move discussion by a non-admin closer.

It appears that the closer is not willing to undo his/her close. If he/she agrees and undos now then I withdraw this MR; if not, I would just let the MR run its course. Waiting for the closer's reply. STSC (talk) 08:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

(RM closer's note) Yes, at this point, given the involvement by so many in this MR and all of the titles affected with undo-ing the close, I think it's best to leave this decision to the MR closer. --В²C ☎ 17:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

East Timor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

Red_Slash did not follow the spirit and intent of WP:RMCI because they did not give "an impartial assessment of consensus or lack of consensus" in closing this requested move. Per WP:CONSENSUS, "consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue". The Closer states that they "came in with only one bias or agenda, which was to close a request that had been open for an absurd amount of time" (see discussion at Talk:East_Timor#Move_request). They, therefore, undertook no assessment of argument quality prior to closure. For example, the Closer's reasons state that "Newspapers are split. TV is split. Government agencies are split." No discussion of TV was made. No government agency split was evidenced (in fact, the opposite is true). Per WP:TIND, NAC was an unnecessary action and a careless act. Te Karere (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse close (no consensus), but don't like the closing statement. No consensus is a fair reading, if anything it was leaning "consensus to not move" and could not have been closed as "consensus to move". The participants were citing usage versus usage-trend, with a little "use English", and generally remained on their cross-points. Dislike the close because it reads like a supervote, asserting of closer's points of argument, too many closer's "I"'s, and a failure to summarize the unresolved disagreements of the participants. This goes to why non-admins should not close contested discussions, except for very good non-admin closers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I support the closer's one year moratorium before another RM on the East_Timor artcile. I think that is a good idea, because the strongest reason to move is the trend change in usage, and the change is slow, measured in years to decades. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Note the separate discussion of a moratorium, ongoing here: Talk:East_Timor#Move_moratorium_proposal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse close It's clearly a no consensus outcome as there were roughly equal numbers (and argument strengths) on both sides. Very disappointed to see this end up at MR after advising Te Karere not to waste people's time appealing a good close (in terms of the outcome); sadly a classic case of WP:DEADHORSE. Number 57 13:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse. As SmokeyJoe says, the closing summary looks more like an opinion than a summary of the discussion. There could also have been a case for "not moved", as the source review evidence presented by those in opposition showed a clear COMMONNAME for the existing title. No consensus was fair though, and as Number 57 says, it's disappointing that this MR was brought without even any discussion with the closer or attempt to understand the close.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse I seriously thought about closing this myself and completely agree that there was no consensus. The summary is not ideal and essentially an explanation of the closers own view. Essentially there is no agreement at all on the subject as yet, leaving it at that would have been wise. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse. Suggest that the nom withdraw this MRV or, failing that, suggest a speedy close. Don't let the "Discussion with closer" link above fool you. There was no discussion, there was only the nom giving the closer five days to respond and then bringing the RM here to MRV within an hour of posting that "discussion". Nobody's perfect, and we all make mistakes. Best to you!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  23:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The closer's comment is at Talk:East_Timor#Closer_statement, following preceding comments. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Ah, I see it now in this edit, which was made before the timestamp was altered with this edit. Certainly does not help when editors alter their timestamps. I actually thought Red Slash was just being sarcastic using irony. I (now) see that's not the case. This could still be a snowendorse especially if the nom were to withdraw this MRV.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  05:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC) 05:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse. I also see nothing wrong with closing statement which shows no bias as far as I can tell, and is a fair summary of the discussion in terms of arguments made and the underlying evidence. --В²C ☎ 20:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • My statement about seeing nothing wrong with the closing statement has been challenged, so let me explain. These are the elements of the closing statement:
    • Obviously the country should have its article at the English name, but there is no current consensus here as to which name is the common name in English. Obvious uncontested statement of fact.
    • Newspapers are split. TV is split. Government agencies are split. Fair summary of evidence provided in discussion.
    • This is an open question still. Perfectly reasonable.
    • I do not think that we have any reason to bar this request in the future, since without a crystal ball I have no idea whether or not Timor-Leste will surge in usage over the next year or so. Reasonable.
    • But for now? No consensus here, mes amis Reasonable reading of discussion with which everyone here agrees.
  • So what exactly is wrong with any of this? What am I not seeing? --В²C ☎ 21:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

    Just to pick a couple of examples at a quick glance:

    • Newspapers are split - the discussion doesn't show that, it shows newspapers substantially favouring East Timor, with the exception of the WSJ.
    • TV is split - I didn't even see anyone mentioning TV.
    • without a crystal ball I have no idea whether or not Timor-Leste will surge in usage over the next year or so - now this may not have been the intention, but this wording suggests that if the closer was certain that Timor-Leste would surge in usage then they would have decided to move the article, even though the discussion was apparently against the idea.

    It's not a massive deal, since we're all in agreement that the outcome was the right one, but I think it's worth using this space to point out aspects of a close which can be interpreted as supervoting.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

    Wow, man, that's tight. By the three "split" sentences I thought he was saying, informally, the discussion showed or reflected that there was usage for both in general media, not necessarily a 50/50 split, but not with enough clarity to show usage clearly favored one or the other. As to the crystal ball statement, that applied to whether there was any reason to bar this request in the future, not to closing this one. I hope I won't get judged that harshly, but I'll try to up my game! --В²C ☎ 22:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse close. Like B2C, I don't see anything wrong with the closing statement either, and it represents a fair, if a bit informal, summary of the discussion and real-world situation. If I had closed that, I doubt that I'd have used a much different statement. No such user (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Whew. I thought I was the only one who saw it that way. Thanks. See SmokeyJoe? Plus, the archives are riddled with examples of closes from all kinds of closers that simply say No consensus or Moved with no explanation whatsoever. To complain about a closer's explanation who wasn't even required to explain seems ridiculous. --В²C ☎ 16:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC) --В²C ☎ 16:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse. Closed as no consensus, which it clearly was. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse. Agree with SmokeyJoe, the closer's statement gives somewhat impression like he's closing based on his convictions not based on points forwarded by the discussants. However, the substance of the close (no consensus) is clearly correct and could've been closed so just by another editor with different statement. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse the result. While some of the complainant's criticisms are probably valid, it was the correct actual decision. The suggestion that the closer didn't analyze the discussion isn't borne out; the closer just didn't summarize it perfectly, and may have editorialized a little (which is actually fairly common, though we should see less of that).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hurricane Dalilia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (No discussion on closer's talk page)

The closer omit the opinion that "Dalilia" may be confusing with "Dalila". 158.182.178.168 (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Endorsed, already marked as hatnote, keeping the current title is fine. --B dash (talk) 05:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse and stale the RM was seven months ago. And seems clear cut too. We don't disambiguate titles that are actually different.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse per B dash and Amakuru above.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  08:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse, as old, and a good close. Disagree with Amakuru's "We don't disambiguate titles that are actually different", WP:SMALLDETAILS does have unclear lines, terminal punctuation, Title Case DIFFCAPS, and homoglyphs. Here, the IP's contention is that Dalilia-Dalila are very similar to the eye. Indeed they are, depending on your eyes, screen resolution, and font choice. I suggest that if you have trouble with Dalilia-Dalila, then I would say: Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't include a preference option for forcing a clearer font, but try browser setting options, for example: Help:Special_characters#Changing_Google_Chrome's_default_font. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

  @SmokeyJoe: when I saw "actually different", I mean in some substantial way which doesn't qualify for SMALLDETAILS and I think extra letters are part of that. Perhaps it's WP:MEDIUMSIZEDDETAILS. That said, though, I do agree with you that there may be occasional exceptions where a title is so commonly misspelled or the competing topic is so noteworthy that confusion could result, where a qualifier would be necessary. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

  I know, but I had to look very closely to be sure of the difference. In this edit window, courier new, it is very clear. A font issue. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse. Correct closure and agree it borders on being stale. After 7 months, you should've just start another discussion. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

World Heritage site (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

The purpose of this MRV is not to dispute the close itself - given the general lack of agreement and conflicting guidelines on what bar we use for establishing capitalised titles, it was probably fair for it to be no consensus, even though I argued that the sources favoured World Heritage Site by quite a clear supermajority. My objection though, is with the result of the move following that no consensus close. After a lengthy discussion at User:BD2412#World Heritage Site User:BD2412/Archive 033#World Heritage Site we didn't reach a firm agreement so I'm bringing it here for review. My argument is that the long-term stable title of this article is "World Heritage Site", since that was in place from the article's inception all the way through to May this year. The article was moved following move request at Talk:World Heritage site#Requested move 15 May 2018, which was supported by three contributors, one of whom (Randy Kryn) changed his mind a few weeks later. So, although the original RM was closed correctly at the time it was closed, I think given the short gap between that and the next RM, the fact that Randy changed his mind and asked for a relist, and that the subsequent RM was clearly "no consensus", I think this should go back to the long-term stable title of "World Heritage Site", where it resided for 15 years, rather than "World Heritage site", which had only been the title for less than two months at the time of the RM. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)  — Amakuru (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• I note that some related articles have been moved to match the new title, for example World Heritage sites by country. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  Right, it makes sense for them to match, but that shouldn't really affect the discussion here. If we decide to go back to the long-term title then they can also be moved back. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Support. The RM which lower-cased the stable title should have been relisted instead of decided, due to lack of participation for an important topic. A relist would likely have found what I did after the close - that the upper-cased name is by far the common name per this n-gram as well as this n-gram. I brought the first n-gram to the talk page and Amakuru, in essence, reopened the RM. The stable title reflected the societal view of the topic, I was wrong and said so, and Amakuru's logical reasoning would correct the situation. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support moving back to the title of the first non-stub version, as something that should always be done when there is no consensus. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Failing a clear agreement here, I support a relist, asking participants to focus on source use versus MOS. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support moving back to the original title. My reading of policy does not allow me, as the admin closing the later "no consensus" discussion, to overturn the previous determination of consensus. I don't think the first discussion was closed wrongly merely because it was not relisted, as RM's typically run seven days and are then closed, and any editor could have relisted it at the time. However, I recognize that the change of opinion by a participant in the original discussion is significant, and that something should be done to restore the previous status quo. bd2412 T 22:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • BD2412's position here is quite respectable. I think he could overturn the previous discussion if the discussion demonstrated a consensus to do that, but with the previous discussion and consequences of "no consensus" being virtually undiscussed, to do so would be a supervote. Closers should be conservative.

  The concept that a state of "no consensus" should revert back to a default has been around for a long time, but the "default" has never been formally agreed, and definitely not documented. I think I have been involved in these discussions for six years. We have WP:RETAIN, which specifies the first non-stub version. I think that principle is best, and should be expanded beyond ENGVAR titling questions. Other versions of the default have been "long standing stable version" and "status quo ante". I disfavor these two as they create an incentive to WP:GAME the process, namely, respectively, to: Agitate to disrupt perception that a current title is stable; or quietly do a BOLD move to the preferred version, hope no one notices, and later claim status quo ante if formally challenged. Titling disputes are frequently factionalized into large camps, for example: minimalists vs descriptionalists' and WP:MOS-ers vs follow-the-sources. With large camps, the GAMES may play out with complete innocence and any single person's part of deliberate WP:TAGTEAMing.

  In this case, the first version was World Heritage site. The first non-stub version was World Heritage Site. The long term stable version was World Heritage Site. The status quo ante was World Heritage site.

  I was involved in the discussion, but relatively uncommitted either way, except that "world heritage site" is not a noun, and even if it is, it is definitely neither a proper noun nor a proper name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  @SmokeyJoe: Good analysis. If I may add to it: One of the reasons RETAIN doesn't apply to titles is it would essentially make RM unusable for any cases with any real conflict; titles would just ossify at whatever the original version was. And that would often be a terrible result. There are others, like: MoS doesn't inject conditions into the title policy; and it's only a last-ditch fallback position after all attempts to come to compromise have failed. The AT rough equivalent of that is already the long-standing stable version, codified in WP:TITLECHANGES (it also permits going back to first non-stub version, but also only after consensus has failed). In this case, however, a previous RM decided that the "good reason to change it" criterion there was met. That leaves status quo ante, and it's long been what RM does with no consensus, absent a compelling reason to do differently in some case (like a history of move-warring that resulted in the immediate s.q.a. being some undiscussed recent move).

  I do have one quibble: "WP:MOS-ers vs follow-the-sources" is a false dichotomy. MoS says to follow the sources, they just need to be solidly consistent. The over-capitalizers want to either [or both at once]: a) follow the cherry-picked sources they like (most often those within their professional field or which match their personal leisure reading habits, or sometimes closely connected to the subject, or sometimes on a nationalistic basis), or b) follow the bare majority of sources (i.e. what 50.000001% of them do), which is not MoS's standard. It's not even UCRN's standard when it comes to non-style matters like whether it's Hilary Clinton or Hilary Rodham-Clinton or whatever. They're making up a pseudo-standard out of thin air to try to get what they want. It's all a form of a fallacy of equivocation in which the meaning of "follow the sources" is sharply bent to try to game the system – a hand-wave and a thought-terminating cliché, as if editorial reason is going to be short-circuited when the phrase "follow the sources" is used like a mantra. Fortunately, the editorship-at-large generally doesn't fall for the Jedi mind-trick.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse and keep the present title. Yes, this is less about the close and more about the result of such a close, much like the first MRV of this month; however, as the closer of this RM has pointed out on their talk page, and the most compelling argument for me (among other compelling arguments), there was a much better turnout of editors in this RM with a signficant number in opposition to "site" being part of a proper-noun phrase. So no, the title of this article is presently correct. If editors want to return to this in a few months and make another attempt to garner consensus for the change to "World Heritage Site", then according to the guide, they may. However, for now the closer's decision should stand completely uncorrected.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  (uninvolved) 19:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  The result was "no consensus". It sounds to me like you're saying it should have been "not moved". If that's the case you'll have to explain why.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  No, I do not endorse a "not moved" because that was not the closer's decision. I endorse the closer's "no consensus" decision to include allowing the title to remain and be the stable title, as the May closer's decision made it. You see, this RM was completely out-of-process. May to August and about 3 months after a firm "moved" decision is unconscionable, no matter how "incorrect" the previous close may have seemed! Three months is barely acceptable for a no-consensus decision, and that ONLY after editors present a new argument or two. Sure, editors like to be bold, and we usually give in to that; however, the closer of this RM was completely correct and outlined their reasoning here and on their talk page. I agree with that reasoning, see no reason to repeat it all here, and stand firm in my conclusion described above.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  19:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  @Paine Ellsworth: Thank you for pointing that out. I had not looked closely at the timeline (I've been away for months, other than some occasional pop-ins), but would have raised the same procedural objection. It's basically a form of WP:OTHERPARENT shopping: just keep recycling the same argument and maybe you'll eventually get a closing admin who sides with you. Unfortunately, these kinds of antics will probably continue indefinitely until RM lays down a firmer rule about "RM-spamming" and it becomes sanctionable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

  User:Paine Ellsworth, what is this “proper-name phrase” concept that you have now introduced for the first time? NB. I worked hard in that discussion to debunk a lot of misconceptions about names and nouns, proper and common, while the real issue was source use versus the Wikipedia MOS. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  Admirable. A "proper-noun phrase" would be a phrase of two or more words and in which all words begin with an uppercase letter. "World Heritage" seems to be acceptable in this case as a proper-noun phrase. "Papahānaumokuākea World Heritage Site" is another example. Consensus in the May RM established that "World Heritage site" is not a proper-noun phrase.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  13:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  Sorry Paine, you didn't use “proper-name phrase” at all. Struck. I agree with your reading. "World Heritage Site" is not a proper noun of any kind. "World Heritage List" is. "Papahānaumokuākea World Heritage Site". I agree that consensus on the meanings of these words was finally evident. The line of argument that remained unconcluded and closed as "no consensus" was whether to capitalize anyway due to sources usually/often capitalizing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  No problemo, SmokeyJoe, and I suppose some people might use the term "proper-name phrase"; however, just the use of "proper name" can apply to either a phrase or a single word. "Cher" and "Buddy Holly" are both "proper names". The "no consensus" result was decided by an admin with tons of experience and who decided to treat this out-of-process RM with dignity it did not deserve. According to that admin, the initial decision to not revert the title was based on the "moved" outcome in the May RM, a result that was decided by another admin. So up until editors pressured this closer on their talk page, two trusted admins had decided that the consensus was to change to and keep the present title, "World Heritage site". That should be the end of it for now.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  00:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

  Proper-noun phrase isn't some new concept or term , but linguistics jargon. It's a useful term in cases like this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support moving back to the original title. Ultimately my opinion is shaped by the fact that was the long standing title and that it is well supported enough in sources to make it highly debatable which is 'correct'. UNESCO itself uses both capitalised and uncapitalised on their website, and capitalised in their official reports. Reliable sources use both capitalised and uncapitalised. Individual sites are always referred to capitalised. Google Ngram shows that in books capitalised is more common. There is some debate over the proper construct of proper nouns, but English grammar is far from an exact science and does lack strict rules. Brand names are particularly difficult as they often present exceptions to normal grammatical constructs. World Heritage Site is a brand name of UNESCO. Overall it is a debatable issue, and I think the long standing title should be restored. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. It appears to me that editors/reviewers are ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and WP:MRV. Consensus on Wikipedia is usually not the same as the general definition of "consensus". One editor can establish consensus on Wikipedia and until another editor challenges it and changes it, that single-editor consensus can and has been known to last for several years. In this case, consensus established in May of 2018 that "World Heritage site" is not a proper name and "site" is not a proper noun in this case. Yes, consensus can change; however, this RM three months later resulted in "no consensus", which clearly means that editors do not agree whether or not the title should be changed back to "World Heritage Site". Supporters in this MRV seem to be supporting an out-of-process RM attempt to change consensus that didn't work, and now this MRV is being used instead just like an RM to make it work. This MRV only has the power to determine if the close did or did not conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. What's wrong with this picture? Why are reviewers rearguing this move request?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  The only person I can see rearguing the move request is you, Paine, when you said the title of this article is presently correct. Well that's your opinion, and it could have been raised in an RM, but we're not here to discuss whether the current title is "correct" or not. The closed RM determined already that there is no consensus on that question. We are simply here to discuss what the long-term stable version is, and hence which version should be reverted to given the no consensus close. Policies and guidelines do not give us a definite answer to that question, (as indeed they shouldn't, because every case is different). Hence why I'm asking the community here.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• We'll have to agree to disagree, because what I see here are reviewers "support"ing a title change ("support" is an RM choice, not a Move Review choice) and ignoring the consensus established by the May RM. I just hope that the closer of this review is at least as savvy as the closer of this out-of-process requested move!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  19:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Two things: I do realize that one editor has effectively pulled their "support" !vote from the May RM; however, there was still support from both the nom and another editor. With no objections to the move, the same close would have been expected, which still would have established the consensus for the "World Heritage site" title. I also do realize that the closer of this RM has come here in support of a revert back to an old title; however, I clearly disagree with that, and I think that bd2412's initial experienced and trusted instincts were spot on.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  19:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• I said that I would not comment further however as this review has not been closed quickly, I have reviewed the close. User:Paine Ellsworth you wrote above: "This MRV only has the power to determine if the close did or did not conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. What's wrong with this picture?" Here is my answer to that. Nothing! However the close did not follow procedure.

I agree with User:BD2412 that "My reading of policy does not allow me, as the admin closing the later "no consensus" discussion ...", but if I had close it, I would have set aside the arguments put forwards by all those who opposed moving it back:

1. "Oppose It is not a proper name. ...The n-grams that you keep bandying around do nothing more than prove that there are a lot of very ignorant people out there." -- so this user does not dispute common usage, just that the thundering herd are ignorant (because they do not follow rules similar to the MOS capitalisation rules).
2. "Oppose According to our MOS, we should avoid unnecessary capitalization", -- Ditto, but the follow on comments to this opinion are addressed below.
3. "Oppose.... WP:COMMONNAME does not apply to stylization and capitalization." --I have more to say about this below.

All three seem to be following the guidance in the MOS and not basing their arguments on the WP:AT policy, and these opinions, which are not based on an interpretation of the AT policy and its guidelines ought to have been set aside: "by evaluating their arguments... as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions." (Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions).

To expand on number three -- nowhere in that section WP:COMMONNAME is there a suggestion that the title should follow whatever the MOS dictates, it says follow the sources. This is also supported by the sections in the policy Neutrality in article titles "Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is a name derived from reliable sources or a descriptive title created by Wikipedia editors." -- Also see the section "When a spelling variant indicates a distinct topic" which says "The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for". How do we know what that is--we can not know for sure--we use the capitalisation used in reliable sources as a proxy for that (not the capitalisation suggested by the MOS). I fail to see how these three sections can be read any other way than "follow the sources Luke". If the reliable sources had not been skewed towards any particular capitalisation then those who opposed the move ought to have referred to the section in the AT policy called "Article title format" which would have supported their preferred capitalisation (see "Use sentence case..."). -- PBS (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• This is an interesting point, and actually I did also think there could have been a case for this to be closed as "consensus to move", where WP:CONSENSUS is interpreted *through the lens of guidelines and policy* as it should be. User:Frayae initially closed the discussion in exactly that way, and I don't think the conversation that took place after the relist significantly altered that reality. The closer made his call on that one though, and I guess it's borderline, hence why I challenged on the ultimate outcome rather than the closure. If there's a feeling here that this should be overturned to a "moved" closure then I would back that, as I think it that would definitely have been a reasonable interpretation too.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• I do see the logic in your argument, PBS, and I thank you for weighing in. As Amakuru puts it, it was a tough, borderline call, and fortunately that tough call was made by an experienced admin. That closer decided that there was no consensus in this RM, and to respect the previous decision in May by another trusted admin, a decision by the way that set the consensus for the lowercased "site" title, chose not to move the page back to the fully capitalized title. PBS, I can see no good reason to alter those decisions at this time. The idea to wait six months and then make another attempt to garner consensus to move the page is the best idea I've seen in this review discussion.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Paine Ellsworth: just to be clear, your view on the validity of repeat RMs within a month or two of previous ones is not backed up by any policy or guideline. Also, it's not the first time we have discussed this, and the last time it was made clear that follow-up RMs are not banned in and of themselves. The usual practice as I know it from my experience at RM is that new RMs are permitted if (and only if) new information or evidence is brought to light. For example we had the recent RM at Talk:eSwatini, which followed four months after the previous one, but that was OK because a whole lot of new evidence regarding common name in reliable sources was brought up. In the case of this World Heritage RM, the follow-up was fine because there was the earlier RM only really considered it from an official name point of view and further information was brought in for the subsequent RM, including the fact that not even UNESCO were consistent on the question. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Killed a rattlesnake when I was – mmm – about 10yo, then I threw the snake's head in a bag and a friend and I used a broomstick to carry the writhing, twitching body home to be stuffed (that snake had been huge). That's all this is – writhing and twitching – the reflexes of a dead argument. I know you think you are correct and that the May decision was incorrect. Enough editors weighed in at this August RM to make an experienced admin decide to respect the May decision and leave the page title as is. And after all that, you still won't let it go, not even for six months. To me this just seems like such a little reward for such a gargantuan effort. Even though I disagree with you on this small issue, I do admire your stamina and persistence. Sorry if that comes out sounding a bit patronizing; I assure you it is meant sincerely.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  17:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Question on "out-of-process".

User:Paine Ellsworth has a few times above used the phrase "out-of-process". I have found it hard to understand, but I think she is alleging that RM2 was too soon after RM1. It that right? I disagree that RM2 was too soon. We have had this discussion before, involving Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_28#Default_moratoria_on_repeat_RMs, at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2018_June#FC Steaua București. Other key participants were User:PBS and User:SMcCandlish.

Was RM2 out-of-process? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Three months after a firm "moved" closure is too soon; however, that's really just a small reason for this RM to be "out-of-process". The main reason I use the term is because this RM did not introduce anything new, no change in circumstances, no reason to think it would succeed. And it did not succeed! Just like the closing instructions suggest: "...further requests to move the page are likely to fail unless new information or arguments are brought forth." So this RM was out-of-process mainly because it was same-old-same-old and doomed to fail.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  03:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

So you mean: After a clear consensus to move, there must be no new RM merely rehashing the same within 6 months? I didn't really give that thought. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

You say six months; however, the time limit cannot be agreed upon simply because it is quite arbitrary. The closing instructions' main thrust is that the shorter the waiting period, the more likely the RM will fail – the corollary would be the longer editors wait, preferably with new arguments produced, the better chance they have of garnering consensus for a page move. So, after a clear consensus to move, in this case the May RM, there shouldn't be a new RM for a long enough period to lower the chances of failure. Editors cannot agree on moratorium length because it will vary with circumstances.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  11:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary, yes, but that doesn’t mean not a good idea. I like to credit User:PBS: "We have a long tradition that after a WP:RM is closed that it is not re-listed for six months after the last listing. --PBS (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)" —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you for the heads up User:Paine EllsworthUser:SmokeyJoe. I am not going to get involved in this move discussion other than comment on a couple of points that User:SmokeyJoe makes. In general I think that User:SmokeyJoe confuses the guidance in the WP:MOS which is for content within an article with the WP:AT policy and it guidlines which are called "naming conventions" which covers article titles. User:SmokeyJoe states above "We have WP:RETAIN, which specifies the first non-stub version." Not so! WP:RETAIN links to a MOS page. The relevant policy guidance is found by following the link WP:TITLECHANGES. "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed". One only uses the non-stub title where there has been a long period of instability. The reading of this section is usually keep the name as it was before the start of the latest RM, unless there is a consensus to change it. "NB. I worked hard in that discussion to debunk a lot of misconceptions about names and nouns, proper and common, while the real issue was source use versus the Wikipedia MOS." Titles ought to follow usage in reliable sources, Where the MOS diverges from the AT policy and its naming conventions (guidelines) then the AT policy and its naming conventions take precedents. -- PBS (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Pleasure! Paine  

• Who gave heads up? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC

• My mistake. It was you SmokeyJoe(first edit amended) . -- PBS (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Acknowledged that RETAIN is MOS. I think it should be generalised. TITLECHANGES OK, was the lowercased “site” stable for a long time? I think that is dubious. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• If you mean "RETAIN should be imported into policy", good luck with that. Proposals to elevate things from guidelines into policy virtually never succeed (especially not since the mid-2000s). If you mean "RETAIN should be broadened in MoS to cover everything, not just ENGVAR matters" that has been proposed before and went nowhere because the rationale doesn't hold up. (We have ENGVAR and its RETAIN because of major national dialects or "varieties" of usage with their own norms, well codified in major dictionaries and style guides. This doesn't hold for "I like to capitalize 'Site' because it looks important or seems official" and other such quasi-reasoning. Also, RETAIN exists for one reason only: to stop "spell-warring" between American and British/Commonwealth English; if it covered everything, it would make most copyediting "unlawful" on Wikipedia, as long as the original version of something was intelligible. Think of the implications this would have for WP:GA and WP:FA, where carefully massaging the wording to be as polished and professional as we can muster is part of the process.) As for TITLECHANGES, the problem here is that "fails to comply with a guideline" (like MOS:CAPS) obviously satisfies "good reason to change it". (Otherwise we would not have any guidelines about titles and guidelines could not be applied to titling. In reality, they're most of what we apply to titling, since minor RMs to fix a guideline compliance issue are far more common than "this article is at a totally incorrect name" RMs.) 13:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• PBS, hello. You say "Titles ought to follow usage in reliable sources,...", and the upper-cased "Site" is overwhelmingly used in reliable sources, as shown often in this discussion. Per "World Heritage Site" being the long-standing title, the topics common name and its most recognized name in English, should be retained. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• “Overwhelmingly”? “Substantial majority”? Ngrams and reliable sources Site:site was acknowledged as ~ 3:1 (75%). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, 75%. That's common name territory. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

  "Substantial majority" isn't a well-defined term, but I think 75% would qualify under almost any definition. It's more than a supermajority (2/3) and is also the threshold at which an RfA candidate is almost always passed.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

  Even the general interpretation of WP:UCRN's "prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources" (for non-style naming questions) is tighter than this. MoS is considerably tighter, on style matters, and this is intentional (as SmokeyJoe knows well, having helped broker this compromise between "always follow MoS" and "always follow the majority of sources" many years ago). MOS:CAPS: "unless consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources". MOS:TM: "unless a significant majority of reliable sources that are independent of the subject consistently" do it; and "examine styles already in use by independent sources. From among those, choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner."; make an exception "if it is done universally by sources"; and "only when consistently treated this way in most reliable sources"; and not "where independent, reliable sources do not consistently use " that stylization; and "if reliable sources overwhelmingly favor a particular spelling and punctuation, use it in Wikipedia, but do not simply attempt to mimic graphical marketing materials"; and mention a stylization in the lead "if it is also commonly attested in reliable sources, especially if any confusion could result from its absence" [which isn't even the case here]. From the main WP:MOS page (though not about caps in particular) "unless reliable sources consistently do otherwise in a particular case". And so on.

  We're presenting the same thing in slightly variant language (specifically to prevent any wikilawyering about the meaning, as is going on here) about all such style matters. It very clearly means, for this case, that it should be remarkably difficult to find divergence from the capitalized style in reliable sources, in order for us to accept that capitalization as an exception we have to make to our lower-casing. (If in doubt, look up the meaning of "consistent".) This is because style is largely arbitrary and a matter of house stylesheets from publication to publication, so we have no reason to diverge from ours (and many reasons not to), unless the real world overwhelmingly considers a particular style nitpick in a particular case to be very meaningful and de rigeur. That is the case for something like "iPod", but obviously not for World Heritage sites. Plenty of professionally published material uses "World Heritage site[s]" with little-s.

  A related point is a matter of actual policy: WP:CONSISTENT expects our treatment of article titles about similar subjects to be consistent from article to article. We would not and do not apply a capitalized "Site[s]" or similar to other such designations ("parks", "reserve", "sanctuary", etc., etc.), and RMs about these sorts of things routinely, almost invariantly, go lower-case. See, for example, List of national parks of the United States, Strict nature reserve, Wilderness area, National monument, and nearly every other article with a title like this. There are entire categories trees of hundreds of such articles. Terms like these are not capitalized except where they appear in the specific proper name of a particular designated place (e.g., Yellowstone National Park, Mandelia Faunal Reserve, etc.). Where it looks at first glance like there's an exception, there's not. E.g., World Commission on Protected Areas isn't about areas, it's about an an organization named that. There are lots of similar cases, about organizations, registers (in the document sense), laws, or legal classifications, not about places.

  The only segment in which I'm seeing any article title chaos is that there are a number of articles in the form "List of National Monuments of Foo" which need to be mass-RMed to "List of national monuments of Foo" to match all the rest of these articles (including lists of national monuments). The vast majority of them are not even about anglophone countries, so no bogus "official name" nonsense could be advanced anyway. It's nothing at all but habitual "capitalize for emphasis because I think the subject is important" over-stylization. See the very first line-item in MOS:CAPS: Do not use for emphasis: Initial capitals or all capitals should not be used for emphasis. ... This includes over-capitalization for signification, i.e. to try to impress upon the reader the importance or specialness of something in a particular context."
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Was RM2 a mere rehash?

User:Paine Ellsworth wrote, 03:23, 22 October 2018:

"The main reason I use the term is because this RM did not introduce anything new, no change in circumstances, no reason to think it would succeed."

I don't think that is true or fair.

The thread Talk:World_Heritage_site#Name_adjustment is very significant, a significant challenge to RM1.

Newly introduced is ngram data in strong conflict with the facts offered, facts that were not discussed critically.

RM2 further adds ngram data conflicting with the RM1 accepted picture, and the Syrian Civil War precedent. The RM2 proposal statement is greatly improved a rationale over the RM1 proposal and close statements.

RM2 fits very well the advice found at Wikipedia:Renominating_for_deletion#Advice_on_renominating. It is probably a good idea to fork that essay for deletion vs renames, but the issues and advice is equally well suited to both processes.

I think RM2 has to be accepted as valid, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• If that is true, then there must be some other reason why RM2, this RM, failed to garner consensus to overturn the previous agreement to use "site". Reviewers must be painfully aware that this MRV is not only deciding the result of RM2, but that of the May RM as well.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• I think the reason is little deeper than an overall "no consensus". I think this MRV should be explicitly reviewing the entire history, definitely including both RMs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Respectfully disagree. This MRV should be explicitly reviewing this RM's closure, which was based upon the consensus decided in the May RM, and which resulted in "no consensus" to change that decision along with the title remaining at it's present "World Heritage site". If the close of this RM is thought to be within the guidelines of the closing instructions (imho it was), then the closure of this RM should be endorsed.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  07:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• I said in the nomination what the purpose of the MRV is. It is to examine both RMs as a block. Neither close was in itself wrong, but taken together, with a poorly attended RM followed by a very well attended one, the overall result looks like a no consensus and that should result in reversion to the long term title. Please could you comment on that question, rather than the validity of the second RM on its own? (Which I don't dispute. The second RM was definitely no consensus).  — Amakuru (talk) 07:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Very well, to reiterate, the first RM in May resulted in consensus to move to "World Heritage site", and the second RM in August resulted in no consensus to move from "World Heritage site" to "World Heritage Site". No matter how you shake it, individually or as a block, consensus has decided that the present title is the correct title. I hope this is clearer than my above endorsement, which apparently was sadly wanting. There are frequently those editors who don't get what they want and who either accept it and move on or who continue to try to make a specific change. Your attempt has been valiant; however, in my humble opinion, this dead horse deserves to stop being kicked.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  08:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The first RM was mainly based on the premise that UNESCO did not capitalise the phrase. After the first move review I found that to be a false assumption. UNESCO do capitalise the phrase on several of their social websites, and also in official reports. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 08:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Overturn close per PBS (WP:AT policy trumps WP:MOS). Thus, move back to long-standing title at World Heritage Site. --В²C ☎ 21:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  Well, no. They are supposed to complement each other. WP:TITLEFORMAT, part of AT, expressly points to For more guidance, see WP:Naming conventions (capitalization) and WP:Manual of Style/Proper names, which refers to Proper noun article, defining it as a noun that in its primary application refers to a unique entity, which a "World Heritage site" is certainly not, judging by a sheer number of them. And this is the crux of the argument for lowercasing (which I supported in the RM).
  Other than refuting this misconception of yours and PBS, who seem to advocate considering AT and MOS in total isolation, I don't have an opinion on the substance of this MR, and consider it a rather exotic use case to have any policy- and precedent-based backing and effect. No such user (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you for that. And hopefully we are all agreed that Move review has no power to A) reargue requested moves, and B) override consensus. We also probably agree that if the community consensus that results in a guideline goes against the community consensus that results in a policy, then it is the policy that should be followed, and the guideline should be adjusted. That is not the case here. Clearly here, the guideline supplements the policy with detail in this case. So what we have is the May RM that resulted in local consensus to bring this article title in line with policy and guideline community agreements, then the August RM that resulted in "no consensus" to revert that. So in this Move review, "support" seems to be an inappropriate response, while "endorse" appears to be appropriate and in line with both local and community consensuses. Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  16:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  Yet re-arguing the RM is what the overturners are doing here. MR's question is whether the close was faulty, and it clearly was not (despite my pseudo-criticism of it as vague).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse; keep present title. This is just a matter of basic English. If you buy a cheeseburger at McDonalds, you have on your tray a McDonalds cheeseburger, not a McDonald's Cheeseburger. If your girlfriend Jennifer has a dog, it's Jennifer's dog, not Jennifer's Dog. FFS. I can hardly believe anyone even argued the other direction on this at all. The only fault I find with the close is that it should have been not moved, rather than no consensus, on the strength of the actual arguments presented. [That is a tongue-in-cheek criticism. The close was not faulty.] Lots of IDONTLIKEIT crap is still just IDONTLIKEIT crap. Closers either need to have the guts to say so, or not be closers, and stop counting heads as if RM or other consensus discussions are a vote. I don't think the closer only did that in this case, but volume (of both sorts) seems to have had an influence. The "defy MoS and other guidelines" types both make a lot of noise and show up in the same little clusters to relentlessly re-present the same deflated arguments over and over again now matter how many times they don't get their way on some style peccadillo. It's almost always in favor of over-capitalization of something, and based on little but their sense of traditionalism about the pre-21st-century typography they grew up with. The frustration of dealing with this will-never-drop-the-stick bullshit is the primary reason I just took a months-long wikibreak, and why various others have wandered away. This "give me my pet style or I will argue everyone to death forever" stuff costs the project a lot of editorial productivity. It needs to stop.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC); clarified: 11:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  I just noticed this in the RM: Someone from the [US] National Trust (i.e., a subject matter expert) wrote: "Many refer to ‘World Heritage Site(s)’ capitalised as the ‘name of the award’. This is incorrect. The ‘award’ is ‘World Heritage’ status, which means they’re on the UNESCO World Heritage List (capitalised). A World Heritage site is a site that is placed on that list." And that the capitalized version has "almost been adopted by organisations as a title they can affix to a property/area; despite not being correct per-se." I.e., it's just another case of marketing-caps.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• No, you need to stop. Your opinion of "basic English" is your own, and reliable sources (including dictionaries) disagree with you. So before you accuse others of using WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, perhaps you should look at your own first.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• His comment was fair. It could be criticised as relitigating, it is a RM not MR style comments, but note that he was not a participant. I disagree with a suggestion that BD2412 is a weak closer, or that RM2 was not well closed as “no consensus”. Other than those two points, I think SMC makes very good points. He needs to “stop”? Is there a continuing campaign by SMC? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Is there a continuing campaign by SMC? Not exactly. SMcCandlish is very involved in the manual of style, and I trust his opinion on it implicitly. The comment is more of an overview on comparable discussions elsewhere. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• It's clear from the rant above that SMC is engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and insisting on a my-way-or-the-highway approach to style on Wikipedia. Rather than actually tell us why the arguments in support of the move were weak, and hence why the close should have been "not moved", he's just launched a tirade against supposed cabals of people who allegedly can't drop sticks. And irrelevant straw-man arguments about cheeseburgers and dogs. As I said at the beginning of the RM (however many months ago that was) I used to share SMC and Dicklyon's opinions that we should almost never capitalise terms unless every single source did so. I argued strongly for that point of view in 2016. But it became abundantly clear, through the RM at Syrian Civil War and others, that the WP:CONSENSUS of the community does not support that interpretation. I've therefore moved on, and now endorse the "substantial majority" of sources text as currently written. I suggest that SMC do the same because currently his views are at odds with the community.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• It takes at least two to battle, or to reargue an RM. Battles and arguments are between or among people. The horse is dead, long live the horse. Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
• Well, I quite enjoyed the rant. It resonated with my view that someone asserting ""Word Heritage Site" is a proper noun or name" doesn't know what words mean. Whether to follow sources using poor grammar/spelling/capitalisation is a very fair question for debate, and I don't think it qualifies as BATTLEGROUND. It would be better done at a guideline talk page, though. I studied up on the Syrian Civil War captilsation question for Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2016_August, and I submit that "abundantly clear" are not the right words. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Grouped reply to all of that: My MR-centric point is actually very clear – "The only fault I find with the close is that it should have been not moved, rather than no consensus, on the strength of the actual arguments presented." I thought it also clear that the "criticism" in that is tongue-in-cheek. The rest is a frustrated meta-point about the disruptive nature of WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:NOT#ADVOCACY over-capitalization punditry in general. It's very interesting that when I suggest that this disruption needs to stop, someone perhaps over-invested in generating and perpetuating such disputes in the first place can't come up with a more sensible and responsive reply than an ad hominem "No, you need to stop". It both utterly missed the point and proved it for me in the same virtual breath.

  If someone actually wants to re-argue the linguistic and usage points at length, that's fine by me, but as SmokeyJoe put it, "It would be better done at a guideline talk page, though." (WT:MOSCAPS being the obvious venue). If people want to avoid relitigation on this page then be clear: there is no question where the current guidelines lean on this.

  I've said nothing at all "at odds with the community"; the RM, this MR's mixed endorsement pattern, thousands and thousands of previous RMs about over-capitalization, and the wording of the guidelines themselves demonstrate what the overall community rede is on it. The fact that we sometimes make exceptions to guidelines simply proves they're guidelines not law. They are not broken; "occasional exceptions may apply" is part of how WP defines guidelines. (Syrian Civil War wasn't even an exception, it was a no consensus – exactly what we already have in this case.) Just wanting an exception isn't a rationale for one. Neither is noting that some other publications don't write exactly the way we do. That is true of every publication and every conceivable style matter. (And we sometimes temporarily make exceptions, based on who showed up and screamed a lot, which do not last. A great many of them do not.)

  No "irrelevant straw-man argument" was presented by me. Someone needs to read Straw man and Analogy and absorb the difference. (See also SJ's observation, "someone asserting '"Word Heritage Site" is a proper noun or name' doesn't know what words mean." Same general problem, which seems rooted in the Dunning–Kruger effect.) It's Amakuru, rather, whacking a straw effigy, namely the claim "SMC and Dicklyon's opinions that we should almost never capitalise terms unless every single source did so", which is an silly outright falsification of both our position on the matter and – far more importantly – the MoS position (i.e., the overall community position, which is not represented when a handful of people angry about an RM result stack up some "overturn" votes that regurgitate their RM arguments but can't actually demonstrate that the close was faulty). I also said nothing about "cabals"; that's another real straw man. No conspiracy or collusion is required for multiple people with the same over-capitalization habits to converge on the same poor arguments for the practice at a site that doesn't write that way. There is no "my way" to follow, and I never advanced one (straw man no. 3). I am not advocating anything that has to do with my personal preferences. (I don't personally like every line-item in MoS. And I don't follow MoS when I write elsewhere – you'd be downright shocked how much capitalization is used at the wiki I edit second-most frequently, under its own style guide.) But it is our playbook; follow it, or play on another field (or at least stay out of the way, on the sidelines, while you argue whether the rules make sense). There's nothing complicated here: We have a style guide, the move requester demanded a variance from it for weak reasons, did not get their way, and now is trying to get the close reversed, but the close wasn't actually in error.

  PS: on the obvious WP:Dictionary fallacy above: The fact that two dictionaries have recorded a capitalized usage they found is completely meaningless, since we have also observed and recorded the lower-case version in other reputable publications. The dictionary can't magically make those disappear, and isn't a somehow a more reliable source than all other sources. Dictionaries record usage they observe, they do not create or destroy usage. They also don't observe everything, nor are they entirely up-to-date; any given dictionary entry may not have been revised in decades. We treat WP:TERTIARY sources as weak for very good reasons. That the capitalized version exists was never questioned by anyone [cf. actual meaning of straw man again], so a dictionary as proof that it exists is a waste of time. It has no bearing on the question of whether we should capitalize "site" or "sites" in this construction. That's already covered by MOS:CAPS, the RM did not conclude to carve out an exception, and the closer correctly noted this result.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Great example of why this stuff can't be capitalized: (do an in-page search for the phrase "The caves have been classified" to get to the most relevant part). The registries mentioned in this article (and note that English and French have different capitalization rules) are named Cultural Heritage of Wallonia (Patrimoine culturel immobilier classé de la Wallonie), Exceptional Cultural Heritage of Wallonia Patrimoine immobilier exceptionnel de la Wallonie, and List of Classified Properties of the French Community (Liste des biens classés de la Communauté française). Note also that these registries do not even have structurally similar names between the first pair and the third of them. When constructing a sentence like "The caves have been classified on the list of Cultural Heritage of Wallonia sites since 1978", it is basically not linguistically sound to capitalize "sites" in such a construction (nor "list", since it is not part of the name of the publication or publisher, either). This becomes really apparent in a case like this, but is less obvious in a case like "World Heritage sites" because we think about it less, and because some sloppy journalists and marketers who love to over-capitalize things have in fact published the phrase "World Heritage Site[s]" with a capital S, causing intelligent people's eyes to briefly glaze over.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @SMcCandlish: What about the fact that UNESCO which designates the sites uses full caps in their official reports. Does that make any difference here? — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

    No, for multiple reasons, starting with WP:INDY. Next, UN agencies follow a UN style guide, and have their own derived ones (I would know, since I have most of them). WP does not follow those style guides and they don't follow ours. (It's basically the same argument that we'd have to follow the "norms" of Wired Style when writing about Wired magazine, and of The Yahoo! Style Guide when writing about Yahoo or any of its properties, the GPO Style Manual when writing about the US government; all of those are real style guides.) Third, governmentese/bureaucratese over-capitalizes rampantly; WP completely ignores this practice. None of our content is written in bureaucratese, ever. We have 17+ years of move results pertaining to over-capitalized "official" stuff being lower-cased to plain-English norms. Fourth, WP doesn't over-stylize the names of things to match the stylize presented/preferred by the entities that produce what we're writing about; we do not write in marketing style, mimic trademarks, or go along with other typographic shenanigans, unless and only unless reliable independent sources do so with remarkable consistency for a specific case. That means across genres and registers. That's just not the case here. "World Heritage site[s]" is quite common in print. Contrast "Ipod" and "IPod", or "Deadmaus"; people do not do that with these names, despite their divergence from regular English orthography. We permit stylistic variants like iPod and Deadmau5 only when the world's usage basically forces us to, not when the owners of a trademark or copyright would prefer it, or journos in a particular niche do it, or fans/supporters of something like it. This is another thing where we have thousands and thousands of RM precedents going against capitalization, no matter how "official" it is. If it's not way beyond majority use, into "no serious writer does it otherwise" land, just follow the MoS defaults. Otherwise we would just delete MOS:TM, much of MOS:CAPS, and heavily revise WP:UCR to say that it applied to style questions and to always stylizing things the way the numeric majority of other publications do it (and remove WP:AT cross-references to MOS, and delete the principle that the article text and title should be in agreement, and change WP:POLICY to no longer say to interpret policies and guidelines as complimentary but to instead treat them as at cross purposes and nuke any guideline material that goes beyond what the policy says, and, ....).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse; keep lowercase generic term site – World Heritage and World Heritage List are treated by sources as proper names. And Site is part of a proper name when it's part of a specific site name. But site is otherwise generic, as a large proportion of sources bear out. Per MOS:CAPS, we default to lowercase when sources are so mixed. The closer saw these arguments, and agreed that there is at least no consensus to breach the advice of the MOS on this one. Dicklyon (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. The only major question seems to be when enough sources is enough. 75% of the sources upper-case. 3 to 1. WP:COMMONNAME states "However, some topics have multiple names, and some names have multiple topics: this can lead to disagreement about which name should be used for a given article's title. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above." That seems clear enough, as 3-1 is certainly a "significant majority". Randy Kryn (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Are you sure that "When enough sources is enough?" is the "only major question"? Seems to me the only major question in this MR venue is Were the closes of the May and August RMs reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines? "Whether enough sources is enough" might be a great major question for a future RM; however, inasmuch as these two RMs are concerned, that question has been thoroughly answered by a fairly large total grouping of editors and by two trusted admin closers. The last fruit from the tree you continue to shake fell off weeks ago. We're already about halfway in time to the next non-out-of-process RM, so maybe it's time to move on. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  16:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • And, no, 75% is not enough. It's not even always enough for WP:UCRN purposes. Even if it were, that's irrelevant, since AT isn't a style policy, and the entire point of the MoS requirement for nearly uniform stylistic consistency in RS before we diverge from our own style guide is to prevent the stylistic chaos of veering wildly between typographic approaches from article to article. We simply would not have a style guide if 75% was good enough. I know that Randy knows this, he just likes to pretend otherwise. (I know that he knows because we've been personally over it innumerable times, and his severals years of attempts to treat AT as a style policy have met with rejection over and over and over again in RMs. I like Randy a lot, but RM is just is not his strong suit.) At some point, it has to sink in that consensus just does not buy this argument, no matter how long about half a dozen people, out of thousands of active editors, keep advancing it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - I just want to note here that this discussion has gone completely off topic. The question I asked at the start of the RM is: given that the RM was no consensus (which most observers think was the correct close), where should the article reside? Several of us have argued that it should be at the long-term stable title, which is World Heritage Site. Paine Ellsworth argued the opposite, that a more "process-based" interpretation should be used, namely that the poorly attended RM, which had a small consensus to move, in June set the precedent even though the vastly-better attended later RM saw no consensus. All recent comments have been around the validity of the rename request itself, which wasn't the question. To be absolutely clear, I am asking this as a matter of fairness to those who participated in the no-consensus RM... and if the boot were on the other foot, with a long-term World Heritage site having been moved to World Heritage Site and then a no-consensus resulting from that, I would still be arguing in that situation for a revert to the long-term name, even if I disagreed with it. Because that's how WP works. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • That is, unless of course, this MR decides to uphold the May consensus and see the August non-consensus as meaning there is no consensus to revert back to the uppercased "Site" in the title, which is exactly what two trusted admins decided to do. Several editors here have agreed with them, and if their decisions are upheld by this move review, then that's how Wikipedia works. Welcome! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  22:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

    That seems the only sensible approach. Amakuru's restatement seems to ask to have the cake and eat it too. No MR or other process overturned the May RM; the more recent RM was an attempt to do just that, and it failed to gain consensus to do so, so the may decision still stands. WP:CONTENTAGE is also highly relevant here. We have no policy against moving old pages. It doesn't matter how long the article was at the "Sites" title when RM decided to change it, then had another RM that did not decide to undo that decision. We sometimes revert to an old stable title when there's move-warring going on but that's not happening here. Finally, that the second RM attracted more attention than the earlier one is irrelevant since the later one didn't come to a consensus to do anything. The implied assumption that the earlier RM was "broken" in some way simply isn't tenable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

    Come on SMC, just step back from your strong opinions about this case for a moment and actuality consider the point itself. Sure, you don't want the title moved back, but in the circumstances it is the fair thing to do and I would argue the same even if I didn't like the original title. Bd2412 and SmokeyJoe, experienced and respected editors who did not have an opinion in the case, concurred with that view above as well. You quoted NOTBURO above, and that applies here too. It defies common sense that a long term stable title is changed on the basis of a poorly attended RM which you and I and lots of others missed due to vacation, when the subsequent one, which brought new evidence to light, showed that really the community is divided and there is no agreement on either side. Who knows, maybe we can firm up the rules in the coming months and take this to RM again with clearer guidance as to the bar for capitalization, but in the meantime this should go back to its 15 year title which nobody disputed, not moved on a technicality. Cheers.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

    "Technicality". Sheesh. I can still hear the rattles as my friend and I walk home along that wide ditch with a broomstick on our shoulders. It took a while, but that particular long, thick, dangerous snake was eventually coiled, stuffed and put on display – a silent reminder that it could do no more harm. All things must come to an end. A consensus that was not changed by a substantial group of editors and two trusted admin closers is definitely not a technicality. It is instead an improvement to the encyclopedia! Just wish I could get you to see that. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  00:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

    The problem with this (Amakuru's bit, not Paine's, whose "technicality" analysis I agree with) is it gives special imprimatur to content age and WP doesn't do that. Ideas like this have been tried before and they don't work. They end up being evasion of and carveouts from WP:CCC and of the applicability of all the WP:P&G, at whim: "This article shouldn't have to comply with guideline changes that post-date it becoming an FA, because it is an FA"; "No infoboxes can be put on articles about X because WikiProject X has said so since 2006"; "There's consensus for the change in this RfC, but we should grandfather any old articles and not apply it to them"; "This section has been in the article for years, you can't remove it!"; "Don't delete this stub; if it wasn't notable we would have caught that that back in 2010"; "My topic-ban shouldn't be considered valid since it's from 2007 and I just forgot about it, it's too old-news." There are dozens of variants of the idea and the community never accepts them.
    Even MOS:RETAIN, MOS:DATEVAR, etc. don't work this way; they're "if all else fails" fall-back positions to usage in the first non-stub version when and only when consensus fails to materialize (and they're limited to a handful of things like ENGVAR, date order, and citation style which are completely arbitrary from WP's perspective; titles are not arbitrary or we would not have WP:CRITERIA and it would have been elevated to policy). WP:TITLECHANGES requires only a "good reason" rationale for a change, and a consensus discussion (i.e., an RM). "[S|s]ites" is obviously not arbitrary (or this debate would not exist), and consensus for "site", with good reasons, did not fail to materialize in May, nor did a recent test to see if that consensus had changed conclude that it had.
    The "Nobody disputed 'Site' for X years" thing is a red herring. We adopted style guidelines which unequivocally dispute it and everything like it as a class, and RM moved thousands and thousands of articles to stop overcapitalizing like that. With over 5 mil articles, the date at which this gets actively applied to a particular article is utterly random – we're all volunteers here and we don't have global search–replace tools, so it's manual, tedious, and dependent on editorial attention. Some of our worst articles are over a decade old. Ex.: Just last year I noticed that the dance-related articles created by a now mostly moribund wikiproject were all over-capitalized throughout ("Argentine Tango is a Ballroom Dance that ...", "the Spin is initiated by the Lead putting the Left Foot forward then ..."). Those pages having dance handbook style in text and titles since 2006 or so didn't make it wrong for me to clean them up (still ongoing).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Recent RfC with direct relevance: Essentially the same question was asked at Talk:Milwaukee Bucks#RfC for team colors, and the result (unanimous) was "use lower case", even for something like "Dodger blue".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Restore long standing version This isn't an easy one but I think the question comes down to did the change have enough time to become the new "stable version"? I will use a parallel to article content discussions. Assume a few editors take a survey and establish a local consensus to make an article change. Sometime after that other editors notice and open a RfC to review the change. If the RfC results in no-consensus then we would read this as "no consensus for change after a wider review" and the long standing text is restored. However, this assumes the followup is done before the change ages into a new "stable version". How long does that take? The general rule of thumb I've heard is 6 weeks but it isn't hard rule. For example, how active is the page? If it gets less traffic it might take longer for editors to weigh in on a change or react to it thus more than 6 weeks. In this case I see little traffic on the talk page between the first and second discussion so more time is needed to establish the new stable. The size of the first vs second consensus can also come into play. In this case the first consensus was just 3 editors. That's not much and suggests few editors were even looking at the change at the time the question was being asked. That enforces the "more time needed" for stable. Given the slow rate of change on the article (thus long time needed to establish new stable version) and the significant increase in editor participation the second time, I would say the second discussion reflects the true community consensus which is "no-consensus" so default to long term stable version. Springee (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• That's a whole lot of "iffing" and hedging to build and then attempt to rationalize a hypothetical scenario and a hypothetical community response to the scenario, which really aren't comparable to the facts in this MR. So, false analogy. Stability is either in evidence or it's not. There is no "more time needed" to assess whether something's stable. How packed a discussion was doesn't have anything to do with how stable the result is. About 99.99% of decisions on WP are made by a single person (direct edits to articles), and are taken to be stable de facto consensus unless and until a consensus discussion overturns them. This is pretty explicit in WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EDITING policies. Otherwise we could never get anything at all done; every single tiny decision would have to be subjected to an RfC, and anyone ever expressing any doubt about something would negate it having consensus. WP just doesn't operate that way. And to reiterate a central point here: the original RM, while not a massive RfC, did come to a clear conclusion. The re-RM of it later – an explicit and rather lobbied attempt to overturn that – failed to do so. No amount of "well, it shouldn't've failed and we should pretend it didn't" revisionism is going to change that.

  This MR is open to examine whether the closer screwed up, not to re-re-re-litigate why you think the page should be at the other title. It's not like any new facts have been presented or any policies have changed. The WP:P&G remain firmly where they were on this; independent RS do not consistently capitalize this phrase, so WP doesn't either. It's a simple rule. We follow it for everything, and the special pleading on this particular case is just form of fandom. Even subject-matter experts from places like the National Trust don't agree this phrase is a proper name.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Springee right, SMcCandlish wrong. The stable name should be kept. The original RM was incorrect in closing so soon, that's the point being made by editors here. Given time the RM would have included the n-gram information that the upper-case is by far the common name, and I would have changed my comment to "Oppose" (as I've said, I trusted an editor who called it the common name), so this entire discussion hinges on when, not why, the original RM was closed. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Not to put too fine a point on it, the first RM that resulted in a local consensus to support the P&G community consensuses was closed on the 9th day. That means that it was in the "backlog" bin when an experienced, trusted admin saw a "snow" support for renaming to the article's present title, "World Heritage site". So I don't see how you can say that it was incorrect in closing so soon. Even if you had changed your support to oppose, there still would have been a majority to rename, and the supporters would still be backed by P&G. That was a good close by a trusted admin that established and upheld local and community consensuses for the present article title. The close of the second RM, "no consensus" to move from "World Heritage site" to "World Heritage Site", continues to uphold the P&G consensuses of our community. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  21:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, RM standard is 7 days, so the idea that this was closed "too soon" is a fantasy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) For heavens sake please stop relitigating the RM, SMcCandlish. You've been around the RM circuit long enough to know that's not what we're at MRV for. The result was no consensus, as assessed by an experienced admin closer. Policy and guidelines are not as clearcut in this instance as you say they are. I asked a very specific question about whether that meant we should to to the long-term stable title or the more recent title decided by an RM shortly before the RM which resulted in no consensus. The closer and some other uninvolved parties above agreed that would be a fair outcome, and I think if the boot were on the other foot you would argue the same thing. And it's not like it settles the issue forever. Once the article is restored to its long-term title we can let the dust settle for 6 months to a year, maybe clarify the policy a bit more clearly, and then look at this again. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Since it seems okay to keep repeating ourselves, this is a gentle reminder that the result you described, "no consensus, as assessed by an experienced admin closer", also kept the page title where it was before that decision, which was also the choice of that experienced admin closer. And that closer only agreed to revert back to a previous title after being pressured on their talk page by those who continued to "relitigate" the RM. Several editors above have also agreed that the present title is correct according to consensus, and MRV cannot and should not change consensus. At least we agree that editors should wait 6 months to a year before revisiting. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  21:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• This entire thread is a huge pile of relitigation; if I have to engage briefly in some of it to address that which is already here, then so be it. I've invited people to take this to user talk instead, and what's really happened is the relitigation has mostly stopped (other than Randy Kryn has added some more, suggesting he wants to change his old !vote and use different evidence – that's relitigation). I'm continually coming back to procedural matters, and the "overturn" camp simply are not hearing it. You're pointing "relitigation" fingers in the wrong direction. I'm focusing, when possible, on the exact opposite of relitigation: on policy, procedure, and the fact that an RM closing with consensus for lower-case, then a second RM failing to overturn it, does not mystically transmogrify into a have-our-cake-and-eat-it-too return to the old article name before the first RM, which would amount to declaring the second RM to have closed in a strong consensus to overturn the first one, the opposite of what really happened.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• To the closer. I was going to answer some of the misstatements above, but couldn't find where in the coding of this wall-of-text laden discussion to jump in. The facts in this matter: only three editors were involved in the original RM, and in retrospect something of this importance should have been relisted to get more input. I'd trusted the statements put forward that the common name was lower-cased, but soon after the close I found that the common name is actually upper-cased. I reversed myself, and then joined in the discussion to endorse putting the title back to its long-term name: World Heritage Site. The upper-casing is the common and most familiar name, and should be returned until an accurately presented RM overturns it. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry you have so much trouble with this wall-of-text, continuously relitigated requested move move review, Randy. The facts in this matter include that the first RM was effectively a SNOW support for "World Heritage site" and was closed from the backlog by a trusted, experienced admin. That set the bar. The facts also include that COMMONNAME was a contentious issue in the second RM, which was opened specifically to reverse the decision from the first RM and move the article back to "World Heritage Site". That discussion, which was attended by several more editors, resulted in "no consensus" to revert the title. That decision was also made by a trusted, experienced admin. Now that we have all the facts all summed up nicely, if we wait just a little while, we can doo this all over again! (I just checked the dates – the first RM was closed on 24 May, and the second RM was closed on 23 September, so a new non-out-of-process RM could conceivably be opened on or after 24 December, a mere 19 days from now. I wonder if this discussion will be closed by then? Happy Holidays!‍) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  04:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Just a thought... if the nom and supporters should choose to withdraw this MRV, I doubt if many would quibble over the few remaining days. A new RM could be opened right after withdrawal. I'd open it myself (opposed to a page move, of course), but I think it's best to see how this MRV ends. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  05:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Oppose that Paine. These niggling titling MOS things are thoroughly distracting and annoying to productive editors, and this case has aroused more emotion than facts. The default moratorium should apply from the close of this MRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Well, it was just a thought. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  07:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Understandable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

          Have to concur with SJ on this; to open a new RM days after this MR closes to relitigate it again would be just really uncool.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Randy's just re-proving what I've been saying all along, providing a (very WP:UNDUE) argument to emotion and special pleading, a demand to capitalize because of how important he feels the subject is (which is yet another actual attempt to relitigate). Just another in a years-long string of WP:NOTGETTINGIT arguments at RM and elsewhere that capital letters = respectful honoring of a subject's importance, and lower-case = disrespectful dismissal. It's an abject failure to understand how capitalization works in formal English writing (versus "greengrocer's caps" and marketing stylization). The close was not in error, which is the only question actually before us at MR.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

    Right, and your opinions on the matter are completely dispassionate and not because you prefer one style over another, right SMcCandlish? Yes, Randy has had strong opinions in the past, e.g. at Civil Rights Movement, but in this case he actually changed his mind on it after the original RM, which rather disproves your theory that he is acting purely based on prejudice. The fact is, this is a borderline case - the source percentages mean that it could be cooked either way. The MOS doesn't give us a definitive answer, there was no consensus on the RM, and I'd ask you to please step back from the issue itself and just agree that to to back to the title that existed for 15+ years with no quibbling whatsoever until 2018. As is the norm for no consensus closes. Then we can move on and actually work together again to improve some of the other places where the MOS is not being followed. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

    You'd be surprised. I don't write off-Wikipedia in the style used on Wikipedia. I use the style guide of whoever the publisher is (or the one expected/preferred by, if not published by, them). So do all professional and experienced amateur writers. If I were writing for an Associated Press newspaper, I would likely write "World Heritage Site" because that's the dominant style for this phrase in news writing and consistent without how AP Stylebook treats such phrases. If I were writing for an academic publication, I would absolutely use "World Heritage site" because Chicago, New Harts, Scientific Style and Format, and various journal-publisher-specific stylebooks do not over-capitalize in this way. The other two (topical) wikis that I write for the most use vastly more capitalization than WP does, and I follow their style when I'm writing there. In short, this has nothing to do with my opinion. Your attempt to personalize the style dispute with sarcasm and finger-pointing has failed. Nor was I even involved in the discussions that lead to this MR; I am no partisan in the debate, I'm an incoming MR respondent noting that the the close was not in error, and so this MR should close without finding fault in it. What this is about is our internal WP:P&G and our consensus formation processes and procedures (and their resistance to focused PoV pushing, in this case about stylistic trivia the rest of the world just DGaF about). There are many things I disagree with in MoS (and some other guidelines) as to whether they are the best possible rule we could have, but I follow them when I edit here, and I protect their stability because WP having a consistently applied rule set is orders of magnitude more important than nit-picks about particular line items within them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

    • If this is a borderline case, then it was decided by consensus in the first debate and then in the second debate by no consensus to revert back to the title that existed before the first debate. As the closer of the second debate rightly concluded, it would be wrong to revert the title – wrong – and the title should remain as it is now at "World Heritage site". This has been adjudged by community consensus. MRV does not go against consensus. MRV only decides whether or not the close(s) was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia common practice, policies, or guidelines. And nothing else. The closes of the May and August debates both easily fall within that description in just the manner they were performed. Those two debates led to the present title, and that is where it should stay until another RM down the road may change it back. Recent comments make me tend to think that the moratorium must be at least a year. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  15:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

      And it's not actually a borderline case anyway, just an emotive one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd like to try and sum this up. The critical clause in the Requested move/Closing instructions is given by the following example:

...if an article is created at Soda can and stays there for years prior to being WP:BOLDly moved to pop can, and a move request is filed leading to a decision of "no consensus", the article must be moved back to its longstanding title.

In this case, there was no instance of being WP:BOLDly moved to World Heritage site. In this case, there was an RM in May that used the correct Wikipedia process to rename the article. Then three months later in August, another RM resulted in "no consensus" to move the article back to its longstanding title. The closer respected both the RM closing instructions and the consensus of the May RM and did not move the article back to its longstanding title. Some editors were dissatisfied with that outcome. They went to the closer's talk page and then they came here to support moving the article back to its longstanding title. Their dissatisfaction is noted and respected; however, their desire to move the article back to its longstanding title goes counter to the above quoted criteria from the closing instructions. The title was not changed in May through one editor's WP:BOLD action. It was changed in May by a process that is supported by community consensus – the due process of Wikipedia:Requested moves. So the nominator and supporters are attempting an action that goes against consensus. And the present article title should continue to stand just as it is – World Heritage site. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  12:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

A.S.D. Romagna Centro Cesena (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

The RM was refer from Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 317#A.S.D. Romagna Centro Cesena and A.C. Cesena, the non-admin closure of the RM refer it back to REFUND, it that a normal closure? I was the nominator of both request BTW. Matthew_hk tc 10:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Additional note. The long term article title was A.C. Cesena, which another football club A.S.D. Romagna Centro (or later A.S.D. Romagna Centro Cesena, RC Cesena), claimed as the successor A.C. Cesena. The discussion seem divided and sightly slanted to keep them in separate articles, but not a snowball uncontroversial discussion to any outcome. Matthew_hk tc 13:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Overturn. This one's a bit complicated, so it is no wonder that it is no more nor less than a bureacratic run-around. First the nom requests undeletion here, where an admin suggested "opening a discussion about the move". Then when the nom complied and began a page-move request, the RM is relisted twice and closed five weeks after being opened with a close that sends the nom back to the undeletion request page. This is one that probably should have been closed by a more experienced editor, so the buck should stop here. I say put things back the way they were and then go with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in regard to mergers, deletions and page moves. In essence, start over and do it right this time.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  19:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• I went back to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion and had the situation fixed. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• The case seem resolved. Matthew_hk tc 12:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM) (Discussion with closer)

I tried to discuss the matter with Dekimasu on his talk page, but he did not reply in the next three days he was active and has now been inactive for over a month. I had established that Zakarid Armenia is by far the more WP:COMMONNAME. Considering that "the debate is not a vote" and "valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements", this should've been convincing enough to move the article. Also please notice that the article had been named Zakarid Armenia for years until it was recently moved with no discussion taking place (and articles can't be moved back to a previous name by regular users). So not only should Zakarid Armenia be restored for COMMONNAME, but also because there was no consensus to move it in the first place. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep as no consensus but move back to long-term title - given that this was only moved in April away from the long-term title of Zakarid Armenia, and that was done without discussion, it seems clear that a no consensus outcome should go back to the long-term stable title.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Move back to stable title I think this can be speedily closed as such since such a move would've been done through WP:RMTR if requested there Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse "no consensus"; however, page should be moved back to long-term title, "Zakarid Armenia". A "no consensus" outcome must include a revert of the recent and undiscussed page move. Ref.: Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus

  ...if no consensus has been reached, the closer should move the article back to the most recent stable title.

 Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I am not able to be active at the moment, but I do not object to reverting the page to the previous title. I regret that User:EtienneDolet had to wait so long for a resolution to this issue. Dekimasuよ! 06:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)